The court reinforced that a landlord’s need must be treated as bona fide unless proven otherwise, emphasizing the importance of examining evidence beyond mere assumptions.

O R D E R

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

These revision petitions under Section 20 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (the Act) are preferred challenging the common judgment rendered by the Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery in a batch of appeals affirming the order of the Rent Control Court, Kannur, dismissing nine applications for eviction instituted under Section 11 (3) of the Act. The common landlord in the proceedings is the petitioner in the revision petitions. 2. The landlord (the Society) is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The premises involved in the applications are rooms of a building let out separately to the tenants involved in the proceedings. The case set out by the Society in the applications is that the landlord is an association formed for the prevention of cruelty to animals in Kannur District; that there is no animal shed-cum- inpatient clinic (animal shelter) in Kannur and that they, therefore, propose to start an animal shelter in the premises let out to the tenants. The tenants resisted the applications. The contentions taken by the tenants were mainly that the Society does not have the locus standi to institute the applications; that there is no bona fides in the need and that at any rate, the tenants are entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to (3) of the Act, inasmuch as they depend solely on the income from the business carried on in the premises for their livelihood and there are no other suitable premises in the locality for the tenants to carry on the business.

3. The Rent Control Court tried the applications jointly, permitting the parties to adduce evidence in one among the applications namely R.C.P. No.339 of 2004. On the side of the Society, the Secretary gave oral evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A23 documents were marked on the side of the Society. On the side of the tenants, oral evidence has been adduced by six witnesses including three tenants as RWs.1 to

6. Exts.B1 series and B2 series documents were marked on the side of the tenants. Exts.X1 and X2 were the documents called for and proved through third parties.

4. The Rent Control Court found that the Society ceased to be a society for prevention of cruelty to animals on the formation of a new society for prevention of cruelty to animals under Rule 3 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Establishment and Regulation of Societies for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) Rules, 2001 (the Rules), framed under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 for Kannur District and that the Society does not have the locus standi to institute the applications. The Rent Control Court also found that the need put forward by the Society for eviction is not bona fide. The Rent Control Court, however, rejected the contention of the tenants that they are entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. In the light of the findings aforesaid, the Rent Control Court dismissed the applications.

5. The Society challenged the decision of the Rent Control Court in appeals. The Appellate Authority, on a reappraisal of the materials, affirmed the findings of the Rent Control Court that the Society does not have the locus standi to institute the applications and that the claim put forward by the Society for eviction is not bona fide. The Appellate Authority did not also interfere with the finding of the Rent Control Court that the tenants are not entitled to the benefit of the second proviso to Section 11 (3) of the Act. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed affirming the decision of the Rent Control Court. As noted, it is aggrieved by the aforesaid decisions of the authorities below that the above revision petitions are instituted.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the landlord as also the learned counsel for the tenants and perused the records.

7. The learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the Society is a voluntary society registered under the Societies Registr